Defense of the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter CheesusPowerKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CheesusPowerKid

Guest
Hey all!

I am currently in a “battle” with one of my protestant friends over the legitimacy of the Eucharist in the bible. We’ve been in this for at least a week now, though we’ve been discussing it for months, and we’ve definitely gone around and around in circles. Trust me, we’ve been through it all. My favorite defense is the passage where Jesus says, “Amen Amen I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, you shall not inherit eternal life.” Of course, the greatest defense is when Jesus says, “This IS my body…this IS my blood.” My friend wanted to turn it into a metaphor to the crucifixion, but he could not find a passage anywhere in the bible while Jesus is talking about His body and blood that even remotely referred to or implied symbolism or metaphorical value. With that, we both let it drop because he couldn’t respond and I was tired of circles…we both know we’re not going to “change” the other, but it’s always great to be able to defend your faith.

ANYWAY:) He called me today and asked me to read Lev. 3:17, where God commands the Isrealites never to partake of any fat or blood (classical cannibalism attack:)). One of the footnotes in my bible refered me to Lev. 17, 10-14, which covers the same concept in further depth. He asked me to read the passage and explain my understanding of it to him and how it should support the Eucharist, and I have some very elementary replies for it, but I really want to make sure I have everything worded right before I take him on again. I am looking at the passage as a reference to keep people from murder and sacrifice in which they drink each other’s blood…it calls for all things you hunt and kill to have its blood spread out in sacrifice over the alter because the blood is “the source of life in a body”. Now here’s some of the things I’m trying to build on out of this passage. First, I feel God said it to prevent murder and to discourage wasting of his earthly gifts and animals. It requires a deeper respect and honor for all things of God, ESPECIALLY his children. Here’s a further out there thought, maybe God also didn’t want people drinking each other’s blood because He knew that that sacrifice would be saved alone for His son…that His son’s blood WOULD be spilled for us and given to us to recieve in our own bodies, but what significance would that have if it was ok to go around eating and killing ourselves as it is? Christ is the ETERNAL sacrifice, the only LIVING bread and blood, so His should be the only one we recieve.
As you all can see, I am in very elementary stages of this defense, and I honestly have no idea how far off base I am, so whatever you guys could give me to help me defend our faith would be absolutely amazing…you guys typically know a ton more about it than I do:)

Thanks again, and have patience with me, I’m new in the apologetics stuff and not very good:) God bless,

in Him,
Britty
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
Of course, the greatest defense is when Jesus says, “This IS my body…this IS my blood.” My friend wanted to turn it into a metaphor to the crucifixion, but he could not find a passage anywhere in the bible while Jesus is talking about His body and blood that even remotely referred to or implied symbolism or metaphorical value.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this is the key point here. Jesus did not say “This is a symbol of my body”, nor “This represents my blood”. He said “This IS my body”. In fact, many abandoned Jesus due to this statement. John 6, 56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” John 6, 60 “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”” John 6, 67: Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Protestants did it.
 
PowerKid:

Ask him this question:

All those generation upon generation that the Jews celebrated the passover and specific instructions were to EAT the lamb, was that symbolic eating? If not, why then would God discipline his people for ages only to change it to symbolic when the NEW COVENANT (Holy Eucharist)comes?

I for one am curious about how one will respond to that. But as our beloved Benedict XVI said: Truth without love is a “clangging cymbal”. Do it with utter gentleness.

God Bless.
 
Just use all of John 6, Mk 14:22-24, Mt 26:26-28, Lk 22:17-20 and 24:30-35 and 1Cor 10:14-17 and 11:23-29. All of these explain how the Eucharist, is literally the Body and Blood of Christ.

One thing you got to remember is your Protestant friend believes in Sola Scriptura, but not this part of it.
 
Hi CPK!

Here is one of my own favorites, and I 've even recreated the graphics from the original analogy.

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? If I make a symbol of a person (like say, this 🙂 ) and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol (like maybe this http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif ). I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he? There is the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.
 
Wow, in the time it took me to type this, you had several replies. When I started typing you had none!

Hey, Britty. I’m new at this stuff too, but in the one month that I’ve openly claimed Catholicism as what I believe to be the Truth, I have had to defend this mystery nearly daily. That being said, I’ll direct you to a few sources:
  1. Do you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s very helpful, and you would learn so much from it. It’s beautifully written, but it doesn’t offer much grounds when communicating with those believing in Sola Scriptura. Nonetheless, check out paragraphs 1406-1419. Those are the “In Brief” statements. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is discussed thoroughly beginning at paragraph 1322. I thought I knew an online copy, but now I have lost the link. Can anyone help her out with that?
  2. The Gospels contain an account of what is referred to as The Lord’s Supper, and this will likely be what your debate partner would be interested in hearing. Matthew 26:26-29 is a very simple testament to this practice. A similar account is recorded in Mark 14:22-25. A more lengthy account is recorded in Luke 22:14-20. Finally, check out John 6:30-69. That’s a long one, I know, but it’s worth the read. Notice how they ask for the life (v. 34), then they complain about him (v. 41), then he reiterates that he is the bread of life (v. 48), then they question one another about him (v. 52), then he once again establishes the meaning (v. 55), and finally the reject it (vs. 60 and 66).
  3. There are other verses in the Bible, I am sure, that indicate the meanings of bread and life, etc. I wouldn’t want to steal another poster’s thunder though 😉 (Actually, I’d rather move on to the Summa).
  4. A most brilliant piece of work is the Summa Theologica (newadvent.org/summa/)). Your Protestant debate partner may not be familiar with this and also may not credit this work. Nonetheless, check out the overview of the entire sacrament (newadvent.org/summa/4.htm, scroll down to near the bottom—I don’t believe there was a bookmark to link straight to the general section) or view the questions that specifically deal with the Real Presence in the Eucharist (newadvent.org/summa/407600.htm)). Especially read the first question.
 
My own ideas:
As you’ve read, the purpose behind forbidding consumption of blood was based in the meaning of blood–“For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11). People were not to drink blood because the life of other creatures belonged to God. All things were created for God’s sake, and their lives therefore belonged to God. With Jesus, however, there is a difference. The human nature of Jesus belonged to God in a way no other human nature (or created being) did, because the human nature of Jesus was the human nature of the second divine Person of the Trinity. On the other hand, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) not for God’s sake, but for our sake. His life, in a unique way, belonged to us because His human life was lived for us. Because God lived and died for us, the reversal of the rest of us who are to live and die for God, we can claim His life for our nourishment as we can claim no other life. Therefore, the same reason we were forbidden to drink the blood of other creatures is the reason we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ–because “the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

From the book Bible Basics by Steve Kellmeyer (much better than my own ideas):
“As the Israelites would later write in their legal code, blood was the source of all life. By marking their houses with blood [at the Passover], they were proclaiming themselves to be the seat of life for all peoples, thus the angel of death would pass over them. Those with no blood on their lintels were people dead to God. But God put a strong stricture on the Hebrews–they could not consume blood. They were not yet ready to incorporate the source of life into their lives. The Mosaic law would be an external source of life, as the blood on the door signified, but it was not an internal wellspring of life. That internal wellspring of God’s life within them had not yet come into the world.”
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
Hey all!

ANYWAY:) He called me today and asked me to read Lev. 3:17, where God commands the Isrealites never to partake of any fat or blood (classical cannibalism attack:)). One of the footnotes in my bible refered me to Lev. 17, 10-14, which covers the same concept in further depth. He asked me to read the passage and explain my understanding of it to him and how it should support the Eucharist, and I have some very elementary replies for it, but I really want to make sure I have everything worded right before I take him on again.
Click to expand...
OK, so let me get this right. When the OT and the NT disagree, and the NT agrees with your friend then the NT overrules the OT. But when the OT agrees with your friend, then the OT overrules the NT.

In the Old Testament era, Israel was forbidden to drink the blood of animals, and yet Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn. 6:53). It would seem that Jesus is contradicting the law of Leviticus, which says, “You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off” (Lev. 17:14). God outlawed Israel from drinking the blood of animals because that was their life force; God did not want Israel to participate in the life of the beast. They could, however, eat of the flesh of certain animal sacrifices, for eating the flesh of animals signified a participation in their death.

Why, then, does Jesus command us to eat His flesh and to drink His blood?

**** Because God wants us to participate in the death AND Resurrection of Jesus ****. When we drink the blood of Jesus we are not participating in the blood of creatures, but of the Creator; not the blood of beasts, but of the Lamb of God! In the Eucharist we are called to share in the life of God. Jesus taught: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn. 6:51).

NotWorthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
In the Old Testament era, Israel was forbidden to drink the blood of animals, and yet Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn. 6:53). It would seem that Jesus is contradicting the law of Leviticus, which says, “You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off” (Lev. 17:14). God outlawed Israel from drinking the blood of animals…
Click to expand...
This is actually an excellent point, but you may want to consider it in a different way. Christ could not teach us to break one of God’s laws any more than He could tell us to symbolically break one of God’s laws. Think of it using a different law:

Imagine Christ saying that you should *symbolically *commit sodomy to remember His death.

This is, in fact, how scandelous what He said about “eating His flesh”, only moreso since He was speaking literally! This is why the disciples had soooo much of a problem with this in John 6! This is what would spurn people who witnessed Christ healing and performing many “signs” earlier in Christ’s ministry to leave Him in John 6:66!

So you see, even though Aramaic had over 4 dozen words to express the word “represents”, none of them were used by Christ. It would make no sense to ask someone to symbollically break one of God’s laws in order to honor God! RATHER, (as Grace and Glory said), the life is in the blood and God wanted to share His life with us. If we don’t actually have the blood, we don’t actually have the life.

Good luck, and God bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
. Christ could not teach us to break one of God’s laws any more than He could tell us to symbolically break one of God’s laws. Think of it using a different law:
Click to expand...
Let’s look at Leviticus one more time:
“You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off” (Lev. 17:14). God outlawed Israel from drinking the blood of animals…

Since Jesus is a human (and God) he is not considered a creature (or animal). Is this the loophole in your argument.

Because, otherwise, you could use the argument against cannibalism to argue against the Eucharist, since it was obviously outlawed.

Notworthy
 
Beside Biblical references that were provided for you, I would like to suggest two documents, which John Paul II, the Great wrote - an encyclica “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” (the Church of the Eucharist) and an apostolic letter “Mane Nobiscum Domine” (Stay with us Lord). Both deal with the Eucharist. Let us also remember that this year is the Year of the Eucharist (soon to be over in October).
Ecclesia de Eucharistia can be found at: vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html , while “Mane Nobiscum Domine” can be found at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20041008_mane-nobiscum-domine_en.html
 
Besides, God did not want us to experience an intimate, spiritual, and real bonding with animals, but only with Himself. The entire OT shows us that even with His revelations, man could not choose God consistently. When we finally remained openly worshipping only God, we created other gods that we did not recognize.

The forgiveness that the Jews thought they received through their daily holocausts could not truly forgive their sins, hence the blood offerings occurred daily, twice a day. Jesus’ offering for us, was in contrast completely efficacious, so that His Offering was once for all, through all time. Mystically (really and truly, but sacramentally–as though through a glass darkly) becoming present at every Mass so that we all can offer ourselves, all that we are and do back to the Father, perfected through Jesus Himself.

Only converted to God and consistently renewing our covenant by drinking God’s own Blood–His Life that He gave to save us–can we grow in holiness and do His will.

As often as I meditate on Jesus’ Real Presence, I still have a tendency to take this way too lightly…Lord, help me to better prepare the soil of my heart to better recive You and Your graces.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top